49ers get $200 million G-4 loan

Get ready for the ceremonial hard hats. The NFL has granted the 49ers $200 million in G-4 loan funds, the financial linchpin in the team’s Santa Clara stadium plan. That money, combined with the $800 million in loans put together by BofA, US Bank, and Goldman Sachs, should make it possible for the team and the city to move forward with a soft groundbreaking very soon. That would be followed by a modest demolition and clearing of the parking lot, which has little but asphalt and parking safety light poles running through it.

Not coincidentally, Santa Clara took a preemptive legal step and sued anti-stadium group Santa Clara Plays Fair to stop them from getting the stadium project on the ballot again. An unusual step, City Attorney Ren Nosky moved forward with this in order:

“to remove any uncertainty over this issue” and “establish once and for all” that the project can’t go back to the ballot.

It’s an interesting move, and probably a good one for all concerned. It puts SCPF on the defensive, because it’s likely that the city will have its legal argument at the ready and, depending on how quickly the lawsuit in Santa Clara Superior Court is heard and how much support SCPF gets from outside, the group may be ill-prepared. We’ll see if they get the requisite support from the ACLU, as advertised. Presumably Ralph Nader’s League of Fans should also be involved, though not from a legal funding standpoint.

The two sides will be arguing over the contents of the 400+75 page, two-part Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). There’s a lot of stake, because if the court were to strike down parts or all of the DDA, the team’s financing could be at risk. SCPF wants a new referendum, so if a judge rules that the DDA were partially or wholly improper compared to the terms passed with the 2010 referendum, it’s a huge delay that could, via the vote, kill the project entirely. For Jed York, the reasoning is probably simpler – he wants to open the place in 2014. Even with the staggering cost of the venue, it’s all the more reason to get a jump on being able to service the stadium’s debt. I figure if the lawsuit were heard in the spring, the judgment could be wrapped up by summer at the very least. Meanwhile, the city would be concurrently clearing the land. The stadium would take 27-30 months to construct, so they could hit their target if absolutely everything went right. If they experience a delay because of the lawsuit and/or referendum, it’s pretty much a 2015 launch unless the team wants to split the 2014 season between Santa Clara and The ‘Stick. I may be a fly on the wall for some of the hearings.

Moving away from the legal realm, the terms of the NFL loan are curious in that they aren’t forcing the Raiders to share the stadium in Santa Clara. The league is asking to 49ers to keep the Raiders in mind. This is something of a pivot, since last year I had heard that if both Bay Area teams were to stay, one facility somewhere was the best possibility. I suppose this is in keeping with the Raiders’ and Mark Davis’s city-agnostic stance. The Raiders in play for both Santa Clara and Los Angeles, and I have to believe that the NFL likes that kind of flexibility. The more teams that could move to LA the better. San Diego is one. The Vikings can’t get anywhere in the Minnesota legislature. Buffalo will probably opt for small improvements to Ralph Wilson Stadium, for which the G-4 program has a subset of rules for financing. Under new ownership, Jacksonville is not in play for the time being. The St. Louis Rams appear to be at the greatest risk of leaving, with onerous lease terms for the city and the team’s long LA legacy. It could play out several ways:

  • 49ers/Raiders in Santa Clara, Rams in LA
  • 49ers in SC, Rams/Raiders in LA, Chargers in SD
  • 49ers in SC, Raiders/Chargers in LA
  • 49ers/Raiders in SC, Rams/Chargers in LA

What I don’t expect to happen is for the NFL to hand out three loans of $200 million to Santa Clara, Los Angeles, and San Diego (or SC, Oakland, SD). For this CBA cycle and the number of teams that need new venues, the NFL is probably working with a $1 billion cap on G-4 loans, with some allowance for improvements to older venues. The previous CBA, which ran six years, had only three venues built during the period (Cowboys Stadium, MetLife Stadium, Lucas Oil Field) and one that opened just as the CBA period started (U. of Phoenix Stadium). The G-3 loan program then ran out of money in early 2007, which should be a signal to all teams that are looking for the NFL to pony up: he who hesitates is lost.

40 thoughts on “49ers get $200 million G-4 loan

  1. The Jaguars are locked into their lease until 2029, and owner (Weaver) has no desire to move them. The lease terms make it such that leaving prior to ’29 is basically an impossibility.

    I agree with all your scenarios re: Raiders/49ers/Chargers/Rams, ML. One of those is how it will play out, for sure. To me the most likely candidate to move is the Rams, which gives the NFL an AFC and NFC team in LA (to placate both CBS and Fox).

    I think the Vikes will ultimately remain in Minny, and that Buffalo will either remain there with annual Toronto games or fully move into Toronto.

    The big, very long-term question mark is the Jags. The market isn’t palatable. The NFL wants to stay at 32 teams, and for good reason. By 2029, Los Angeles will have two teams and the Bills might be fully in Toronto, leaving zero great open markets in Canada/US. That makes me wonder – will the Jags be the NFL’s first permanent foray into Europe? They’ve got 20 years to prepare and continue planting the seed. The NFL is probably the sport most suited for international regular-season play because of the light travel schedule.

  2. Goodell said in his press release today if LA builds a stadium the NFL will expand to 34 teams–no teams moving….sounds like he is trying to put some pressure on a few teams to make a decision…Raiders don’t want to be stuck in Oakland with a pipedream for a stadium….I think that they are headed to LA–‘9ers would be thrilled to own the market to themselves—doubt they really have any interest in working with the Raiders–

    http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nfl/story/_/id/7535394/nfl-commissioner-roger-goodell-says-34-teams-likely-nfl-adds-franchise-los-angeles

  3. It does seem extremely likely that the Raiders will be playing at the stadium in Santa Clara or will be playing in L.A. 1) They are not going to keep playing at the Coliseum and a new stadium just isn’t going to happen (at least for a long time). 2) I don’t see the Raiders moving to a smaller market when LA is untapped.
    I think it is unlikely that the Raiders are going to play at Santa Clara but it is possible.

    Regarding the Anti Stadium group in Santa Clara. This is politics of the ‘we want to win and will do anything to do it’. The voters spoke and the measure passed, If, as the opponents claim, the stadium proceedings going on now don’t match what is in the measure, that would be an obvious and worthy matter for the legal system. But the idea that ‘we don’t like what the pro stadium people said in the election, so lets vote on it again’ is not only preposterous one but an extremely bad precedent to set.

  4. Just as I theorized last year on this blog that the only way LA gets teams is through expansion.

    You cannot move 2 teams there and expect them to be successful long run. If they start losing you will see empty seats everywhere and the NFL is scared of that possibility.

    The only real way they can make LA successful is through expansion and Goodell sees that 100% as you can see.

    They need to organically build a fan base not move a team there and hope the fair weather fans show up when the team is winning.

    The 49ers got through the final hurdle and I am proud of Jed York and what he has accomplished when so many doubted him and the team getting a new stadium in Santa Clara.

    This will be the first ground breaking for a new stadium or arena in California since Staples Center in the late1990s.

    The Raiders will never be let into LA by the NFL. Expansion is a better choice than to move the Raiders back to a place where they failed once already.

    In reality they are trying in vain to build with Oakland and if that fails then move to Santa Clara. It makes sense, they know Santa Clara is going to happen and it gives them major leverage with Oakland who is already losing the A’s to San Jose and face the possibility of losing the Warriors to San Francisco.

    It is my hope the Raiders stay in Oakland long term or perhaps play in Santa Clara for 5-10 years and then move back to Oakland.

  5. @Sid- I don’t think the NFL has a lot of control over where it’s franchises go- if Mark Davis wants to sell all or a significant portion of the raiders to an investor group in LA then they will be in LA. Regarding expansion- I don’t see it- that’s 2 more 1B stadiums needed- and besides LA where is a really desirable location?

  6. The Raiders are screwed if the Niners play hardball. With LA removed from consideration, the Raiders only other option would be to remain the Oakland, where it’s unlikely a stadium gets built in the next 10 years, if at all.

  7. @GoA’s Not clear where you’re getting “2 more 1B stadiums needed” from. Goodell stated he’d like to see all current franchises stay where they are. Implication being, two new expansion teams playing in one new stadium in LA.
    .
    @Sid Your premise that fair weather fans in LA will support a losing expansion team any better than a losing relocation team is highly questionable, to say the least.

  8. Sid – your premise does not hold if one of those teams is the Rams. That would be better in terms of ready-made fan support than expansion. Probably the Raiders and perhaps Chargers too. I don’t think any of those teams would face significant challenges in energizing the fanbase in LA.
    .
    Sorry to the people of St. Louis, but it would be great for the Rams to return to LA. It would sure pique the rivalry once again. It just hasn’t been the same since they left LA. I can’t figure out the Raiders and won’t try. They could do anything at this point and usually do the unexpected.

  9. @Dan,
    “Hopefully” the Raiders could be LA bound? Cmon brah! The Raiders aren’t hurting you one bit by either being in Oakland or SC. What’s with the “hopefully” crap? Just for that..GO NEW YORK FOOTBALL GIANTS!
    By the way, unlike the A’s and Giants, the Raiders and Niners enjoy a great working relationship. Don’t know why some of you are portraying it as being hostile. I’m 100% positive the Niners would love to have the Raiders onboard to assist with annual debt payments. My prediction: Raiders announce move to SC and NFL loan becomes $300 million!

  10. Sorry Tony it has nothing to do with portraying anything as “hostile”, I just don’t give two shits about the Raiders. They have nothing but my utter undying contempt and I’m not going to pretend otherwise. I’d love to see them slink back to LA and finally have to admit they made a mistake coming back here in 95 (which they did) for what they did to the Coliseum and the A’s. And yes they did hurt the A’s and by extension me, by coming back and derailing the proposed Coliseum renovations in the mid-90’s to build that monstrosity in center field. The least they can do is have the decency to GTFO of the Bay Area. They’re not wanted here, at least by me.

    That said, if they want to be Jed York’s bitch and play the New York Jets to the Niners Giants at their new “Giants Stadium” in Santa Clara then more power to them. It’s also a fitting fate.

  11. Having both the Raiders and Niners in the same stadium would up the corp naming sponsorship $$$ as well.

  12. I think the Raiders could stay in Oakland and still help w/ financing for Santa Clara. If Coliseum City has any legs and gets approved, the Raiders would need a place to play during the interim. Say 2-3 years in Santa Clara and pay a healthy rent to aid in the debt service.

    I just don’t think the Raiders would thrive in LA, most people don’t want something back after you pissed on them by leaving. Bringing in the Viks or Chargers would be easier to attack a loyal fanbase.

  13. Everything I’ve read seems to indicate that Mark Davis would have to give up his controlling interest in the team in order to move to L.A. Something he has said he is unwilling to do. Those building the stadium in LA aren’t going to build a stadium without gaining some form of major interest in the team and right now I think Mark only has 47%.
    It seems pretty clear the NFL doesn’t want to move around its franchises and I don’t think Mark is as combative as his dad. I feel pretty confident that if something can be done here (Oakland, SC), that will be the first option.

  14. @ru155 – I think you’ve got the feel for the situation. If the Raiders were to play in Santa Clara for 2-3 or 10 years they could wait until the next CBA for the next round of “G-5” financing.

  15. I see the Santa Clara ‘9ers stadium the most attractive, easiest, and most likely option for the Raiders, at least temporarily. I just don’t see anything getting done in Oakland. I also see the Raiders going to LA as a bit of a long shot, unless Mark Davis wants to unload ownership.
    .
    Going back, I really, really wish the Raiders just stayed in LA, particularly as a big A’s fan. Mt Davis and sharing the stadium with football really hurt the A’s, big time. And the Raiders didn’t do so hot either – they rarely sell out, and they struggle to fill the luxury boxes. And add to that the fact that the City of Oakland is still straddle with the debt of building Mr Davis. Just bad joo joo all the way around.
    .
    I also thought the whole idea of going back and forth is just ridiculous, and doing it one more time (Raiders back to LA) would be even more ridiculous. I’m guessing the NFL really doesn’t want that scenario. I’m guessing the NFL really wants the Raiders to share the SC stadium with the ‘9ers.

  16. I don’t think you can blame the Raiders for Mt. Davis. They were offered a deal that made sense and took it. The blame for Mt. Davis should actually fall on the folks who were tasked with watching Oakland’s piggy bank and long term sports strategy. If the A’s do leave, it can be traced back to this single decision. If the Raiders leave, it is easy to see that whatever the hell the politicians thought they were getting by bringing the Raiders back to town blew up in their face.
    .
    In other words, they built half a football stadium to get a team back. They ruined half a baseball stadium in the process and ended up pushing two marquee franchises out of their city while still paying debt service on the half of a football stadium that is empty.
    .
    That’s not the Raiders fault.

  17. @jeff”Going back, I really, really wish the Raiders just stayed in LA, particularly as a big A’s fan. Mt Davis and sharing the stadium with football really hurt the A’s, big time. And the Raiders didn’t do so hot either – they rarely sell out, and they struggle to fill the luxury boxes. And add to that the fact that the City of Oakland is still straddle with the debt of building Mr Davis. Just bad joo joo all the way around.”

    I understand that sentiment, but one could say the A’s never would have come to Oakland without the Raiders/Coliseum being created or that the A’s would have left if the Raiders decided not to leave to LA initially. The whole return was screwed up with the PSL fiasco, Mt. Davis, etc. but as an A’s and Raiders fan, I’m just grateful they are both here. More than likely, both teams will get a stadium scenario worked out somewhere in the Bay Area. I just view the Bay Area as being a better sports landscape with two NFL teams and two MLB teams. I also saw the joy in my Grandpa’s face when the Raiders came back (a WWII vet, he died a year later), so I am obviously biased, but I just don’t get people who root for a team to leave their area, knowing it would devastate their friends or maybe family members.

  18. Count me among the people who want the Raiders to stay by the Bay (where ever it can be accomplished) even though I am not a Raiders fan. The best thing about being a Bay Area sports fan is Raiders v. 49ers and A’s v. Giants.

  19. I agree – I want both the A’s and Raiders to stay in the Bay Area. And I see the A’s in SJ, and the Raiders at 49ers SC stadium as being most likely scenarios.

  20. agreed with the thought of the chargers and rams moving back to la, which is where they started. raiders i can’t see la wanting them or their image back and moving into a brand new downtown la stadium. it’d also keep the divisions as they are with stl moving more geographically closer to the nfcw teams while the chargers remain where they are too. the only other move i could’ve seen taken place is moving the jaguars to the nfcw had they moved to la and move the rams to the afc south where they’d be closer to indy, hou, and ten than they would be even to the nfcw teams of sf, sea, arz.

    good news about the niners finally looking like they made the last huge jump in getting that santa clara stadium back. as for the raiders, even as a niners fan i’d like them to stay in the bay area but does the raiders org and fan base really want to be the second team in what will ultimately be a niners stadium. i posted this weeks ago but the niners will likely be first priority and you’ll see most likely red seats at the new stadium if you’ve seen the renderings of the venue, unless the nfl or raiders force them to go to a more netural green. the pics also have these huge posters outside the stadium of niner greats and i’d guess there will be statues. course from some niners fans standpoint i doubt they want raiders fans to “trespass” at their home when god knows what some raiders fans would do to niner oriented “property”.

    both great orgs deserve a new venue to play in and at this time the only realistic solution for the next decade would to share the santa clara stadium.

  21. @Go A’s- The NFL cannot stop anyone from moving by law of course unlike MLB. Both expansion teams would play in the same facility. Mark Davis has said he does not want to sell the team and the only way he gets a new stadium is in the Bay Area….Oakland or Santa Clara. He even said he has offers on the table from LA but none make sense.

    @bartleby- My assumptions are actually closer to the truth than you think. By moving a team there they would need to win from day 1 and be playing in LA for at least 3-4 years in order to raise any kind of $$ to build.

    An expansion team allows the NFL to raise $$ without having a franchise move to LA and get stuck in the Rose Bowl or Coliseum if financing falls through. Too much of an inherent risk. As for fair weather fans, people in LA are more likely to support an organic team rather than a team that moved there from another market as evidenced by the Raiders in the past.

    If you ask people in LA they will tell you the same thing. Moving a team there from another market will not work and is too risky if the teams starts losing after the honeymoon period.

    An expansion team or even 2 expansion teams would be the best bet to raise $$ and to get football going again in LA. I just do not see anything like that happening….EVER. The NFL will never return to LA.

    @Dude- The Rams got no fan support in the 1970s when playing the Coliseum despite winning the NFC west 8 straight years. In Orange County they blacked out 2-3 games a year even though they competed year in and year out in the 1980s….Only the 49ers games were surefire sellouts during that time period and they had good teams.

    In OC, they also had luxury suites and a newly renovated stadium in a far richer area and could not sell anything if their lives depended on it. The Rams would be in the same boat as any other team moving to LA. Their LA roots died several years ago.

    In the end you can see from Roger Goodell’s statements the NFL is scared to head back to LA and with good reason.

    They failed miserably there for years and to put $$ and teams from other markets is inherently to risky for the league to swallow.

    The NFL will never return to LA…..Its a bad NFL market.

  22. @lets go A’s- You do realize the Oakland Coliseum had all “red seats” before the Raiders move to LA in the early 1980s. They were painted green for the A’s after the Raiders left and hence why you see that color today.

  23. Just my opinion, but if the Raiders do move to SC it won’t be “temporary” in the 2,3,10 year sense. This would suggest that they’re getting a new stadium deal in Oakland within that 10 year time frame; is that really possible? I say no. I think a 30 year lease is in order for a Raiders team in SC. For all intent purposes, the SC stadium will be “theirs” as well.

    By the way, don’t know why (as RM suggested way back) no one has considered simply renovating the western section of the Coliseum with a second Mt. Davis and new northern/southern seating sections for Da Raiders. Would be pretty cool and not cost as much as entirely new facility. Oh well.

  24. @Tony D. – A caller on Towny’s Monday show mentioned that Mt. Davis actually sinks some six inches per year due to the settling or soft foundation and has to be bolstered annually. Plus the CF service ramp is so steep that trucks have gotten stuck on it. If structural issues are that bad then maybe it’s not the wisest strategy to rebuild around it.

  25. I was at San Diego last week. Folks seem pretty passionate about their charges down there with many having stickers on their cars, hats, and shirts all around. Is a move to LA a foregone conclusion as many folks here are alluding to? I can see the Rams and Raiders going back to LA since they actually have some history there, but the Chargers?

    As far as the Raiders, it’s interesting that people would say that they don’t think the Raiders would thrive in LA because “most people don’t want something back after you pissed on them by leaving.”…didn’t the Raiders just go back to Oakland? /scratches head

    But i guess it’s more perplexing the backlash at A’s owners here from folks who support the Raiders having already been abandoned once, and them contemplating doing it yet again.

    The only reason i would like to see the Raiders stay here is so they can help finance SC stadium, otherwise I could care less where they go ( I have contempt for them as well, but not on par with Dan). Now there is an interesting interesting tidbit floating around: The Giants/Jets were granted $300 million for their shared stadium. The $200 million dollar grant is awfully high for SC alone for 1 tenant, so there’s some speculation that it means the Oakland – Raiders efforts are in real jeopardy if not there chances in staying in the Bay Area altogether. I don’t know if there’s any truth to it, but it is interesting to note nevertheless.

  26. i thought the seats just before the renovation were orange which made no sense since they were green beforehand looking at some old photos in the late 70s or early 80s. but if the raiders moved into a stadium with the niners and the seats were red, i believe the thinking would be that this is the “niners” stadium.

    i also heard that about mt davis on townsend’s show a couple nights ago. i walked up that steep ramp late last season for the season ticket holder’s party after the meet and greet with players on the field and my god, the designs of mt davis should be put in the hall of shame for the complete blunder that structure was and has become.

  27. OK, but now you’re saying no NFL team can be successful in LA. That’s different than saying an expansion team would do better than moving any team there, which is the point I was responding to. However, I also disagree with you on that point.
    .
    You have to consider the economy of LA at the time the Rams left: its lifeblood, aerospace, was drying up (along with other economic drivers). LA was at its economic nadir at that time. Today there is plenty of money in LA to support football. The NFL knows this and can’t wait to tap into it. No offense, but I think you’re absolutely wrong about that point.
    .
    Back to the Rams: despite the renovations, the Big A was designed for baseball then shoe-horned for football, just like Candlestick. It was nothing like today’s palaces, and football is far more popular today than it was even in the mid-90’s. Also, I think you underestimate the number of would-be Rams fans still in LA. They hated Frontiere, not the team, and I think a lot of them would still support the team if they returned (at least the friends and family I know there feel that way).
    .
    I don’t think you can compare their struggles at that time and location with a brand new state-of-the-art stadium today. With a new owner and new glitzy stadium, I can see the Rams doing very well back in LA.

  28. Re: teams moving to LA vs. expansion, the Lakers and Dodgers both moved from other places and have done very well historically. The Rams would have LA cachet just from the history, even if most of the potential fans don’t have crystal clear memories of watching them play. As Dude mentioned, their stadium (why they traded down from the Coliseum to the Big A is a mystery-that was many times worse than Candlestick in terms of seating for football and in the less-geographically-central OC) and ownership situations were horrid the last time around. I don’t remember the fan support being a particular issue in the ’70’s. While they may not have sold out every game, it was a 90-something thousand seat stadium.
    .
    As I’ve posted before, the money people involved in this do not want to risk their money on the Raiders. Tim Lewienke (sp?) implied as much in a press conference that’s on youtube.
    .
    So that leaves the Chargers and Vikings as the competition (Jacksonville has a firm lease, so unless they pay through the nose to get out of it, I’m not seeing them as a great possibility, and I would wager that Buffalo has its eye on Toronto). The problem is that if AEG is making all the money (which they would be since, unlike other sports, the lack of local TV revenue makes it so that a team is not rewarded for playing in a big market). A team is really going to have to drive a harder bargain than AEG is offering now or it’s just not going to be worth it for them.

  29. @bartleby- guess I just don’t see 2 expansion teams playing in a market that has been indifferent to the NFL- 1 would be pushing it- so a second expansion team would have to be in another city….with another 1B plus in stadium costs- maybe San Antonio- just dont see it with the Benglas, Jaguars, Raiders to name a few that struggle in ticket sales- I think Goodell said that to get Mark Davis to make a decision about LA- I would bet that he would prefer for him to sell and have the Raiders be the team in LA- Chargers stay in SD where they have great support- ‘hers own bay area for themselves

  30. Anon, not it’s not a foregone conclusion at all that the Chargers will be one of the teams moving. They and the of San Diego are both still working very hard on getting a stadium built in San Diego. In fact the downtown SD stadium is likely to be on the ballot this coming November and has a decent chance of passing due to that “passion” you mention. The Chargers ARE San Diego. They may have played one unremarkable year in LA, but they have no ties to LA beyond that.

    The Rams seem much more likely to be making a return trip to LA than any other team, the Rai-duhs included. However I wouldn’t rule the Raiders out either. While they’ve been showing some interest in Santa Clara, they could conceivably be the second team to move to LA too. People keep bringing up the “ownership interest” issue, but they’re forgetting that AEG and Roski neither want a majority interest anymore, nor do they want an interest in the “second” team. Only the first to move to LA. So if the Raiders signed on as the second party after say, the Rams…

  31. Just a few quick points- as A’s fans, we all hated what Mt. Davis did to the Coliseum, but I remember when whispers of the Raiders possibly moving back were being heard- there was so much excitement, it seems like fans would have given anything to get them back- and really, the city of Oakland gave them what they wished for (so be careful what you wish for.) No one gave any thought to the A’s, fans just wanted the Raiders back at any cost. That cost was $200M and a ruined baseball stadium. Was it worth it? If you were a Raiders fan it was.

    Here is why the Raiders probably will end up in SC, at least for a while- there is NO WAY the NFL gives out a second loan to build a second football stadium in the same area with a brand new one a mere 34 miles down the road. Unfortunately for the Raiders, the Jets and Giants do share a stadium, and seem to do it rather well in New Jersey. So if the Raiders want their own stadium, they won’t be getting help from the NFL. And really, for both teams, it makes the most financial sense. That is a huge dept that could be paid off much faster with 20 games a year instead of 10. And as someone mentioned before, the NFL might kick in an extra $100M if two teams are there (Jets and Giants got $300M). And really, the only reason not to play in SC is pride- someone has to be the second tenant. I doubt that pride is worth a billion dollars.

    And remember, this isn’t baseball. This is once a week on a Sunday afternoon with almost no traffic, so people will drive further for a football game – Downtown Boston to Foxborough is a 40 minute drive. A drive to Santa Clara isn’t ground breaking at 34 miles from Oakland.

    That leaves LA. Someone already mentioned the ownership problems Davis has with moving to LA. And really, they are the third team. When you listen to the radio in LA on Sunday, you hear Chargers games. The Rams were there longer than the Raiders. And if the NFL wants 34 teams and doesn’t want to lose any small markets, it looks like expansion. The chances of the Raiders going back to LA seem rather small. I suspect that the NFL is going to sit on the LA situation a while.

  32. @GoA’s The Chargers home games are often blacked out, even with their recent success. There’s even a website that was created to protest the blackouts (http://stopchargerblackouts.org/). When they’re not blacked out, their stadium is often half full of the other team’s fans, ie, Raider, Packer, Steeler, etc. The Chargers are also marketed to LA already as their games are usually the AFC team shown. They also have the historical connection of having been created and played in LA. All that being said, I think the Rams or an expansion team would be the best fit for LA.

  33. Dude- good point about the Rams. If not expansion, it seems like Rams- Chargers to LA.

  34. @EB- San Diego was 19th in attendance in 2011-ahead of great traditions like, Minnesota, Detroit, Chicago….. Oakland was 29th…And in all honesty- 2011 was a really disappointing year for the chargers who were expected to compete for an AFC Championship- San Diego is an awesome beautiful city- 8th largest in US- 2nd largest in California- I have a hard time believing the NFL would push the Chargers to LA given the circumstances in Oakland-

  35. @GoA’s The Chargers have been the dominant team in the division for many years running, while the Raiders have had the worst 10 years in NFL history with a hated (for the most part) owner. I’d expect there to be an attendance difference. Look, I’d hate any team t leave it’s home market, it just seems like SD is being targeted. Hey, the Oakland Raiders were thought of as one of the most stable and successful franchises in sports before they left the first time, anything is possible, we’ll see what happens.

  36. @Sid “My assumptions are actually closer to the truth than you think. By moving a team there they would need to win from day 1 and be playing in LA for at least 3-4 years in order to raise any kind of $$ to build.”
    .
    This makes no kind of sense. A team isn’t going to move, save their pennies, then build. They’re not going to move at all unless a stadium deal is assured. They’re going to borrow the money, like the Niners just did. There are two well-funded stadium groups in LA right now pretty much ready to go as soon as a team commits. The financing process for an existing team or an expansion team would be basically the same.
    .
    “An expansion team allows the NFL to raise $$ without having a franchise move to LA and get stuck in the Rose Bowl or Coliseum if financing falls through.”
    .
    An expansion team raises money for the NFL, but it’s not going to be the NFL providing the bulk of the stadium funding. If anything, the financing is likely to be more challenging for an expansion team because they’ve got to find money for the franchise fee as well as the rest. And as stated previously, I see little likelihood a team will move without having a stadium deal first. That’s why Roski and AEG are working to put together stadium deals even though they don’t have a tenant yet.
    .
    “As for fair weather fans, people in LA are more likely to support an organic team rather than a team that moved there from another market as evidenced by the Raiders in the past.”
    .
    What is your evidence for this proposition? LA has never had an “organic” NFL team, both the Raiders and Rams were transplants. The Rams were there first and longer, but I believe the attendance history of the two teams in LA is fairly similar.
    .
    “If you ask people in LA they will tell you the same thing.”
    .
    I have many friends and family living in LA, Orange County and Riverside County. None of them have said anything of the sort.
    .
    “Moving a team there from another market will not work and is too risky if the teams starts losing after the honeymoon period.”
    .
    Any team, anywhere can expect to have periods of winning and periods of losing. For most, losing can be expected to impact attendance. But you have fallen far short of establishing a convincing argument that LA is a less viable location for an NFL team than Jacksonville, Cincinnati, Buffalo, Phoenix, Tampa, Charlotte, Atlanta, Nashville, St. Louis or (I hate to admit it) Oakland.
    .
    “An expansion team or even 2 expansion teams would be the best bet to raise $$ and to get football going again in LA. I just do not see anything like that happening….EVER. The NFL will never return to LA.”
    .
    Despite the fact that LA is the second largest metro in the U.S., one of the wealthiest corporate markets in the U.S., has two well-funded, experienced groups pursuing stadia, has a number of NFL teams actively considering it as an option, and has the commissioner specifically saying he wants to see not one but two teams there? Um, okay.
    .
    “@Dude- The Rams got no fan support in the 1970s when playing the Coliseum despite winning the NFC west 8 straight years. In Orange County they blacked out 2-3 games a year even though they competed year in and year out in the 1980s….Only the 49ers games were surefire sellouts during that time period and they had good teams.”
    .
    For some reason, historic NFL attendance data is harder to come by than MLB data. However, a “bring the Rams back to LA” site has this to say: “The Los Angeles Rams led the NFL in attendance 11 times in franchise history, spent a majority of their time in the top 5, and averaged well over the NFL average during their stay in the City of Angels.”
    .
    Bear in mind, the Arizona Cardinals had wretched attendance history before their new building, and are doing OK. Also, the LA Coliseum does not really compare to a state of the art stadium either in a rejuvenated Downtown LA or in Industry.
    .
    “In the end you can see from Roger Goodell’s statements the NFL is scared to head back to LA and with good reason.”
    .
    I can see this from his statement that he wants to see two teams there?
    .
    “The NFL will never return to LA…..Its a bad NFL market.”
    .
    I would agree that because of the NFL’s revenue sharing structure, LA is not the golden opportunity its demographics might otherwise make it. But it’s still a much better market than a lot of existing NFL markets.

  37. @GoA’s “guess I just don’t see 2 expansion teams playing in a market that has been indifferent to the NFL”
    .
    And yet, that seems to be what Goodell is specifically saying he wants. And Sid seems to think that’s the only way it could even theoretically happen. I say — cage match!

  38. @all This oft-repeated notion that the Raiders ruined the Coli for baseball thereby driving the A’s out of Oakland is wildly speculative, at best. No doubt the remodel made the Coli less appealing for baseball, and probably hurt A’s attendance somewhat. But the A’s will have remained in Oakland for more than twenty years after the remodel, at a minimum. The Coli would be obsolete for a present day MLB team even if the remodel never happened. And Oakland would still have the same problems with lack of public money and/or corporate base to privately finance a new ballpark as it does now. It seems extremely dubious that the remodel had much effect on what ultimately becomes of the A’s.

  39. I think what may happen is that IF Coliseum City can become a reality with both the Raiders and Warriors staying, then Raiders will play two seasons in SC and be co tenants with the Niners in SC until the new Coliseum City is built…or Raiders go to SC longer than that until they get a new stadium in Oakland OR LA!

    I’m actually amazed that the NFL gave the SC Niner stadium a $200 million loan for a 1.2 billion stadium (if not more when it is all said and done) with NO provisions that the Raiders need to be con tenants to receive that $200 million?? Weird…..

    Wow…I guess Coliseum City will not receive a $200 million loan even though that idea and concept is better than the Niners SC stadium site, because of better and more convenient public transportation facilities more than anything?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s